Planetary Science Just Got Its Best Budget in Years

Every NASA science division gets a budget boost compared to 2016

Today, the President signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2017, which funds the U.S. government for the remainder of the fiscal year. NASA received $19.65 billion—its best budget since 2010—and the Planetary Science Division saw its budget increase to $1.846 billion—its best budget in more than ten years.

Needless to say, we are very pleased with this. It represents an increase of $215 million to planetary science above 2016, and is $345 million more than the President originally proposed for this year. When adjusting for inflation and programmatic consistency, this is the best budget for NASA's Planetary Science Division since 2005.

The bulk of the funding boost is directed toward the Europa Clipper mission, which receives $275 million in 2017 on a request of $50 million. This infusion of cash allows the Clipper to stay on track for a 2022 launch date, much earlier than NASA has proposed, and includes additional funding for development of a follow-on lander mission—a mission that Trump's first budget request has denied.

The Mars Exploration Program gets a $62 million boost above the request. The addition money will double the amount of study funding for a new Mars orbiter mission (which has not yet been formally requested by NASA), fund a a "Mars-copter" to fly on the Mars 2020 mission (yes, really!), allow the Opportunity rover to keep on roving, and provide Mars 2020 with some additional resources to ensure it stays on track for its launch in July of 2020.

The Discovery program, which manages NASA's competitively-selected small planetary missions, gets a $22M boost above the President's request. This will help manage the cost overruns with the InSight Mars lander and to support development of two new missions, Lucy and Psyche, which were just selected for launch in 2021 and 2023. New Frontiers was the only part of the planetary science budget to see a decline compared to the President's budget request. The New Frontiers program is in a programmatic lull, having completed development of the OSIRIS-REx spacecraft and just beginning the process of selecting the follow-up mission for launch in 2024, so this decline is not unexpected or damaging.

2016 Final

President's 2017 Budget Request (PBR)

2017 Final Appropriation

Change (PBR vs Congress

Research and Analysis

$163.2M

$178M

$178M

+0

Discovery

$189M

$202.5M

$224.8M

+$22.3M

New Frontiers

$194M

$144M

$136.5M

-$7.5M

Mars Exploration Program

$513M

$584.5M

$647M

+$62.6M

Outer Planets

$261M

$137.3M

$363M

+$225.7M

Technology

$197M

$165.5M

$190M

+$24.5M

Here's a phrase I don't get to write very often: scientific research funding does well, increasing by nearly $15 million compared to 2016. This should help with selection rates for scientific research proposals and support the ever-growing size of the planetary science community, particularly as larger missions like Cassini wind down.

NASA's Near-Earth Objects Observation program grows by another $10 million to $60 million in 2017, but $16 million of that is directed toward the Double Asteroid Redirection Test mission, a kinetic impactor spacecraft which was developed in concert with an now-cancelled ESA mission. NASA has stated that it intends to continue working on AIDA despite the uncertainties in ESA's mission planning, though it is unclear how much this mission will cost, and if NASA will be able to accommodate a full mission budget going forward.

In terms of the big picture every science division at NASA did reasonably well. Earth Science retained its same budget as last year—$1.92 billion—and remains the top-funded science division within the agency. Heliophysics grew to $678.5 million. Compared to 2016, Astrophysics grew to $750 million, though this was less than the President's proposed growth for 2017. While at first glance this looks like positive news for Astrophysics, the division was directed to spend $105 million on the Wide-Field Infrared Survey Telescope (WFIRST), effectively cutting the funds available to all other programs by 10%. SpaceNews has details on the broader impacts to all of NASA science.

In terms of human spaceflight, SLS and Orion were big winners, with budget growth up to $2.15 billion and $1.35 billion, respectively. Commercial crew and cargo are fully-funded in 2017, though overall space operations takes a small hit. $75 million was directed toward deep space habitat development, an increase of 50% over last year.

Now that the 2017 appropriations process has finished (seven months late), attention turns toward 2018. As of yet, the Trump Administration has not provided additional details beyond their "skinny budget" proposal which, though it slashes funding for many sciences, generally treats NASA quite well. More details are expected by the end of May. Congress is already behind in their schedule for appropriations, and has not yet passed a budget-resolution, making life uncertain for the relevant appropriations subcommittees.

In the meantime, we should savor this moment. NASA and planetary exploration are enjoying a complete reversal in fortunes from just a few years ago. Europa, Mars, and many other destinations are in our sights, and the future is looking bright.

Comments & Sharing

6

Comments

Jon: 2017/05/06 07:11 CDT

I got an email from TPS / Bill Nye today asking for donations, but one thing bothered me a lot. Here is how I responded to the email:
"With new leadership in the White House and at NASA—making decisions this year that will impact a generation..."
That's quite the euphemism ... "new leadership in the White House." I would suggest that most TPS supporters would not use such positively inflected language to describe the treasonous regime now trying to destroy democracy, reverse the Enlightenment, and put us into a real-life version of "The Handmaid's Tale."
Just because NASA and planetary science fared well in the new budget — for now — doesn't mean that we have to be nicey-nice with the Constitutional criminals who have taken over our government.
I'm a charter member of The Planetary Society, but my support has limits.
Jon Alexandr
Member 014244
"Mariner"-level monthly supporter
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Nye - The Planetary Society
Sent: Sat, May 6, 2017 8:02 am
Subject: We're so close! Just $18,000 to go!
Dear Jon,
Our 2017 campaign for Space Advocacy—geared to catalyze more NASA science and space exploration—has taken off like a rocket.
We’re now over $81,000…so close to reaching $100,000 and multiplying your impact by unlocking an added $50,000 in matching funds!
With new leadership in the White House and at NASA—making decisions this year that will impact a generation of space exploration—your support is needed NOW to expand our outreach to the White House and Congress!
Thanks to you, we've grown into a year-round program with a deep bench of experience. We’ve met every policy goal in the last five years. Let's keep the momentum going and help set NASA's direction for the next generation!
If you haven’t made your gift yet, will you please help us reach our goal in Space Advocacy with a donation to keep our successes coming?

Karen: 2017/05/07 08:17 CDT

I find this unfortunate. It seems that the Planetary Society can't win - they're getting hit simultaneously from supporters claiming they're being too friendly to the Trump administration on one hand, and too hostile on the other. Nye in particular is getting hit from both sides. It's really unfair.
The US political situation is what it is. Let scientists working in space advocacy continue to advocate for the integrity of the scientific process and for proper funding - regardless of who is in office.
(And yeay for the budget! :) )

DrMorbius: 2017/05/07 08:47 CDT

Ha!
All I want is have TPS stay out of ideological political battles. Their focus should be to advocate for planetary science, not to attack or defend Trump or Obama. Bill Nye cannot seem to resist, and it can only hurt planetary science.

BhanLiz: 2017/05/08 06:50 CDT

The Planetary Society is, as I'm sure the people commenting previous to me know, a space advocacy group first and foremost. And that means advocating for the US space program, aka, NASA's missions and thus it's budget.
I'm sure that personally, all TPS employees and board members are not thrilled who won the POTUS election. But, that must remain their personal opinion, in terms of any sort of personal attack on Trump or anyone else. To attack anyone in the current administration personally, or make any statements such as "our so-called POTUS" or the "traitor in office," would be unprofessional and counter-productive. Whether Trump is a legitimate POTUS or not, you cannot expect official TPS letters & other writings/podcasts, etc to not refer to the people holding what are leadership positions as exactly that, the leadership.
That being said, when Trump or anyone in his administration or in Congress take any action that would harm NASA's programs, or be detrimental to scientific progress in general (cutting education in STEM for example), that IS something TPS leadership can take call out. They still have to remain respectful and professional, but they can express disagreement.
Since our space program is included in the national budget, TPS will have to be involved in politics, but they do not endorse candidates or slander the winners.

Galrito: 2017/05/09 08:06 CDT

To BhanLiz:
I'm sorry, but the goal of TPS is to advocate for the world's space programs, being missions from NASA, ESA, CNSA, etc. It doesn't matter.
I'm a Planetary Society member and I don't live in the US. I wouldn't want to join a society that is biased towards the USA or any other country. It shouldn't matter which country makes a certain breakthrough in science as long as it's shared with everybody else.
That's what I advocate, at least, and it's what I expect from the Planetary Society.

Jansob: 2017/05/13 10:14 CDT

TPS has to stay nonpartisan. Casey needs to work with Republicans to keep the budget strong...if TPS presents itself as an "anti-Trump" organization, that becomes harder. You might not like the current President, but pretending he's not actually the President is childish and counterproductive. Keep your spittle-flecked rants to yourself. I'm here to gain support for planetary science missions, and that means working with WHOEVER is holding the purse-strings. The fact that this year's budget is decent means that Casey has done a good job in a tough climate of making the case to Republicans as well as Democrats. Parties holding the WH and Congress will change, but the job of the TPS is to be consistent and nonpartisan and make sure the budget doesn't lag.